Parliamentary Reform

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are more fundamental matters to do with the power of the Executive. I am starting modestly, but shall come to those in due course. There are bigger issues, but after six months here, and with a degree of humility, I was trying to see whether there are ways in which the efficiency of this place could be improved. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there are bigger issues, and I know that another hon. Member will talk about those shortly.

I return to some of the smaller points. Because they are smaller, it ought to mean that they are not resisted so much. We ought to be able to speed things up and get some of this stuff done. We would then have the time and space to get our teeth into the bigger, more fundamental issues. One of the small things that we could do is to include an explanation of the design or purpose of an amendment. It is particularly difficult for people outside Parliament, and sometimes for Members themselves, if they are not following the legislation in minute detail, to understand the implications of an amendment that states “clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1)”. It takes a lot of time to unpack what it really means; we need the Bill and the amendment, and we need to know some of the background. A simple explanation of two or three sentences would substantially increase transparency. MPs themselves would also have a better idea of what they are voting on, which might not please the Whips very much, but it would increase democracy and accountability.

It is a modest proposal and one that has been made before, but providing explanatory notes would, none the less, make a significant difference. It would give more power to Back Benchers and take a little more from the Whips, and enable constituents to follow better the proceedings of the House.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I echo what the hon. Lady says about explanatory notes. More often than not, Members have no idea what they are voting on. If the first 20 MPs leaving the Lobby later on today were asked what they had just voted on, I suspect that 19 of them at best would have no idea at all. Nevertheless, the big issue is not lack of knowledge about what we are voting on but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) has pointed out, the fact that Parliament itself absolutely fails to hold the Government to account. I hope that we will cover that issue later on in the debate.

[Caroline Lucas]

I completely agree, and I look forward to having another debate on exactly that subject. Let me raise a few more issues before other Members speak. Obviously, this is a well-subscribed debate.

I want to say a few words about the talking out of private Members’ Bills. The Bills, which are introduced by MPs who are not Ministers, are relegated to Fridays, the day when attendance at Westminster drops as most of us go back to our constituencies. Why not move private Members’ Bills to a mid-week slot so that they are better attended? We could then consider the implications of making Fridays a formal constituency day. I do not accept that it is beyond our wits to find adequate time for private Members’ Bills earlier in the week without displacing other legislation. Hon. Members will be well aware that our current system allows Back Benchers deliberately to waste the time allotted for debate on a private Member’s Bill in order to delay it. The vote takes place when there are likely to be far fewer Members present to support it as people leave to get to far-flung parts of the country.

The talking out of private Members’ Bills is an insult to other Members who want seriously to debate the Bill, to the Speaker and, most important, to the electorate who do not want to pay to run a debating chamber that is being mocked by its participants. There should be explicit rules that prevent the practice of talking out a Bill. The Wright Committee stated that “merely procedural devices” should not be able to obstruct private Members’ Bills, but again, we have not seen much change in that respect. That Committee also referred to the popular proposition that a maximum of three hours should be given for the Second Reading debate on any private Member’s Bill, which should be in cumulative and successive sittings, after which the question would be put to the Chamber on whether the Bill should receive Second Reading. In a sense, that would render pointless the act of filibustering. I shall take the fact that there was no intervention on that point as agreement, and I shall proceed with great speed.